[CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog

Wed Apr 19 11:58:53 EDT 2017

Better yet.  How about a packet or JT65 station on a freq or what is 
that service the boaters use to get internet access via hf? There are 
ways, lots of ways.

W0MU

On 4/19/2017 9:44 AM, Roberto Rey wrote:
> Alex, That is so far fetched..its hilarious! Who would monitor a frqcy 
> 24/7 hearing nothing for hours?
>
> You are watching too much TV!
>
> 73 de Rob HK3CW
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Malyava" <alex.k2bb at gmail.com>
> To: <ve4xt at mymts.net>
> Cc: "Bob Naumann" <w5ov at w5ov.com>; "Ed K1EP" <k1ep.list at gmail.com>; 
> "cq Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>; "W0MU Mike Fatchett" 
> <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self-spotting explanation from CQWW blog
>
>
>> "which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using"
>>
>> hmmm...
>>
>> I would arrange a few CW frequencies and ask my friend back in the 
>> states
>> or Canada to monitor them 24x7.
>> Once in a while I will transmit a request for "spot me, the rate is 
>> slow"
>> and will notify him about upcoming band change.
>> All of this can be done in a form of innocent cq or fake qso with bogus
>> call sign...
>>
>>    N0ONE de CO0LID... my radio is 14 years old, my power is 220 W
>>
>> that's it - you just told you friend to spot you at 14.220 :)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:53 AM, ve4xt at mymts.net <ve4xt at mymts.net> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions 
>>> by US
>>> stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why 
>>> zero DQs?
>>>
>>> Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the
>>> message is "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a
>>> significant rule Americans should be expected to obey?
>>>
>>> Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after
>>> having been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station 
>>> does it
>>> once, and isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, 
>>> or is
>>> done after a warning.
>>>
>>> Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as
>>> bias?
>>>
>>> Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am
>>> curious, in light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as
>>> evidence to the contrary, which off-air method of communication the 
>>> team is
>>> suspected of using.
>>>
>>> If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, 
>>> shouldn't
>>> that also apply to exculpatory evidence?
>>>
>>> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov at w5ov.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> OK.  That's enough.
>>> >>
>>> >> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and
>>> T48K
>>> >> in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>>> >
>>> > Off air?  ESP?  Just how did this happen?  We were on an island in a
>>> > somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi.  If you 
>>> had a
>>> > satellite phone, you would be put in prison.  We submitted our 
>>> cell > phone
>>> > bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no 
>>> evidence > of
>>> > this.  But Bob claims apparent evidence.  Show us the evidence 
>>> Bob. > Bob
>>> > wants us to prove the negative.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of 
>>> T48K
>>> were
>>> >> evaluated.
>>> >
>>> > So off the air is now on the air.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be 
>>> spotted
>>> >> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>>> >
>>> > There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on 
>>> his
>>> > first shift in the contest.  We told him to not do it, he stopped, 
>>> that
>>> was
>>> > it.  So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ?  How
>>> about
>>> > all the US stations we worked out of the US band?  Clear evidence 
>>> in > our
>>> > log of the frequency.  Not one US station was DQd.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
>>> >> Disqualification confirmed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>>> >
>>> > Those are not all the facts and you know it.  You are trying to > 
>>> justify
>>> a
>>> > bad judgment call.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons 
>>> for >> the
>>> >> T48K DQ.
>>> >
>>> > You clearly state "apparent".  That is a hunch.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>>> >>
>>> >> 73,
>>> >> Bob W5OV
>>> >> CQWW Contest Committee
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
>>> >>> On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It is indeed time for some rules changes.  You cannot be DQing 
>>> people
>>> for
>>> >>> the actions of others that we have no control over.  If you have 
>>> >>> proof
>>> >>> of collusion or cooperation great.  To tell me you can DQ me 
>>> because >>> my
>>> >>> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a 
>>> few >>> times
>>> >>> is over the top.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has 
>>> done. >>> He
>>> >>> will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that
>>> station's
>>> >>> knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or
>>> communication
>>> >>> with the spotter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> >>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>